5 ms·

How did that setup pass a code inspection?!

mindslight 4y ago
Maybe they're not in an area where it freezes, so the main shutoff doesn't need to be inside the house, and there's no need to shut off and drain the silcock in the winter?
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Let's assume all that is true. Still, shit breaks, and all branches off the main have to be valved separately. With the current setup, contamination (e.g. by sewage) of a branch couldn't be isolated from the house. That is not acceptable.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    I was the one who started the thread thinking that shutoffs on branches were the norm, and apparently that's just not the case everywhere. Also I don't know what you mean about sewage contamination? Sewage contamination of potable water lines would indicate a hugely weird problem. AFAIK backflow preventers (fancy check valves), which prevent water in the house from going back into the municipal distribution, are standard on new installs. But I think that requirement is recent as of the past few decades, so most houses aren't going to have them.
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      I suppose that depends on the typical age of houses in your area? Just as supply lines inside houses might get contaminated, supply lines outside houses might get contaminated. Perhaps from sewage, perhaps from runoff, or whatever. Outside lines are more likely to be broken by sloppy excavation, for example. Simple isolation valves are sensible even in situations that don't require backflow preventers, such as on a private well.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        I still don't really understand what you're saying. Yes, I agree isolation valves are good. But as far as what code requires? It seems that if isolation valves aren't required on branches, then the only isolation valve that is required is the main house valve that can isolate it from the street water main. So I can't figure out what else you think would have been required to pass inspection in the comment you originally responded to.

Maybe they're not in an area where it freezes, so the main shutoff doesn't need to be inside the house, and there's no need to shut off and drain the silcock in the winter?

jessaustin 4y ago
Let's assume all that is true. Still, shit breaks, and all branches off the main have to be valved separately. With the current setup, contamination (e.g. by sewage) of a branch couldn't be isolated from the house. That is not acceptable.
- mindslight 4y ago
  I was the one who started the thread thinking that shutoffs on branches were the norm, and apparently that's just not the case everywhere. Also I don't know what you mean about sewage contamination? Sewage contamination of potable water lines would indicate a hugely weird problem. AFAIK backflow preventers (fancy check valves), which prevent water in the house from going back into the municipal distribution, are standard on new installs. But I think that requirement is recent as of the past few decades, so most houses aren't going to have them.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    I suppose that depends on the typical age of houses in your area? Just as supply lines inside houses might get contaminated, supply lines outside houses might get contaminated. Perhaps from sewage, perhaps from runoff, or whatever. Outside lines are more likely to be broken by sloppy excavation, for example. Simple isolation valves are sensible even in situations that don't require backflow preventers, such as on a private well.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      I still don't really understand what you're saying. Yes, I agree isolation valves are good. But as far as what code requires? It seems that if isolation valves aren't required on branches, then the only isolation valve that is required is the main house valve that can isolate it from the street water main. So I can't figure out what else you think would have been required to pass inspection in the comment you originally responded to.